Skip to main content

Matthew 22:23 - the danger of not knowing Scripture - Day 193

Yesterday's passage was not very theological.  Today's is very theological.  I have only scratched the surface, but hope this encourages us to question ourselves about "knowledge of Scripture and the power of God".

Blessings 

Jeff

This is a fascinating dialogue between Sadducees and Jesus.  So let's interrogate the passage.

What distinguishes the Sadducees from other Jewish doctrinal positions?  They deny that there is a resurrection.  They are absolutely committed to this doctrine.

How does their commitment shape their thought and questions? Even though they don't believe in the resurrection, they formulate a question focused on showing the absurdity of the resurrection.  They are not pointing to a passage of scripture that supports them, but asking a hypothetical question to make resurrection look silly.

What is the purpose of the "Levirate marriage"? Deuteronomy 5:5-8.  First this is not a violation of the 7th commandment (adultery).  Brothers were prohibited from sexual relations with sister-in-law while the brother was alive.  But this special rule was given to raise up an heir if a brother died.  This is a real challenge if the first born son dies with no heir.  The second born would stand to inherit, but he is required to marry the widow.  The focus is on physical life

What is the error that Jesus charges them with?  Not knowing Scripture nor power of God.  They are trying to use a special rule about heirs in this life to the future life after the resurrection.  So they "knew" about the special case but did not apply it appropriately.

Why might the Sadducees come to their conclusion?  The resurrection isn't explicitly taught in the OT.  There are hints but a future life and a resurrection are not really the same thing.  For example, David was sure he would see his dead infant son.  And Job knew he would see God in his flesh.  But bodily resurrection might not be required. 

What should we learn from this?

Debate about doctrine must be based on Scripture, not hypotheticals. 

The author gets to say what the book means.  Sadducees are readers, not authors.  Of course they also denied that Jesus was God.  So they didn't recognize His authority.  But we do recognize Jesus as author.  What He says about the Word and its teaching is true.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Revelation 22:3-5 Final and eternal restoration - Day 365

Dear saints in the Lord, Congratulations!  You made it.  We have been through much turmoil in the last year ('20-'21).  But God is faithful to His promises.  I trust that you have been blessed in your reading and have drawn closer to God.   Since we didn't get the blog up and running at the beginning of the challenge, I am going to go back and post entries to cover that first month or so.   Blessings, Jeff Nothing accursed in the city of God, the new Jerusalem.  The presence of sin will be gone.  I am working on memorizing Westminster Shorter Catechism and currently on question 82.  Is any man able perfectly to keep the commandments of God? No mere man since the fall is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God but does daily break them in thought, word and deed. I think our passage today points to the truth of this question.  Do you notice how this answer is not exactly the same as the question. "Any man" bec...
Post a Comment
Read more

Malachi 2:10-12 Here we go again!! Day 363

Good afternoon friends, As we draw to the end of the Old Testament, we see that Judah has rebuilt the temple and the walls of Jerusalem, but they are following in the footsteps of faithless fathers and not in the footsteps of Abraham and ultimately God.  The exile was a low point, but now a new low is about to happen.  The prophetic voice has once again become warning and not encouraging. Faithful reading and preaching of the word is all that keeps us from losing our way.  May we be faithful in our generation. Blessings, Jeff I am sure I have mentioned this before, but it bears repeating.  The section summary, chapter and verse are not in the original language.  They are all rather modern inventions to help us.  For example, the section title here is "Judah profaned the Covenant".  That is OK as far as it goes, but which Covenant?  So let's take a look. Observations Starts with 3 questions but who is asking the questions and to whom are they addre...
Post a Comment
Read more

2 Chronicles 33:7-9 Thoughts on Davidic covenant - Day 362

Good morning faithful readers, The finish line is in sight!!!  One of the themes of scripture is that God is a covenant keeping God.  There are many between God and man. Adam, Noah, David are examples.  Covenants are more than promises.  They are made between a superior and inferior with conditions for each side and blessing and penalties based on keeping the conditions.  These are covenants of works which fallen man was unable to keep.  Thanks be to God that the Father made a covenant of grace with Christ, the second Adam, which he fully kept. Blessings, Jeff The promise in v8 was made to David when he had planned to build the temple and God promised to build him a house forever. (2 Sam 7:10).  Seems like there are only two possibilities about Manasseh's disobedience.  Either he knew of this covenant that God had made with his 13th great grandfather and chose to disregard it, or he didn't know of it and was unaware of the penalty.  Let's con...
Post a Comment
Read more